Are people basically good?

[ricechickie]

To answer this question, we should first define what "good" means to each of us, and then answer.

What say you?

I think of good as “doing no harm.” I think most people want to be good, and when they do harm, they try to rationalize it as for the greater good, or to prevent more harm, and even for self-preservation.

Humans are social beings, meant to live in groups, and that’s why I think they are hardwired to do no harm, at least in their own group. Otherwise, survival would be more difficult.

 

[ricechickie]

To answer this question, we should first define what "good" means to each of us, and then answer.

What say you?

I remember how things were when I grew up. Most kids are pretty rotten. They have to be taught to be good most of the time.

Good = Doing things that don't harm others
Bad = Doing things that are intended to do harm

Teaching the Golden Rule to children in school would bring out the ACLU and their lawyers.

It starts in Pre-K. Daycare even. Don't be stupid.

Exactly, there's plenty of innate good you see in children.

The bottom line is, we are all born with an inner voice that tells us what is good or bad, unless they are a select few who are sociopaths who go onto a political career.

However, we all, at some point, violate this voice, do we not?

So to be "bad', how many times must we violate this inner voice or does it only come down to the severity of the infraction?

Are you trying to equate “good” with “perfect”?

 

[G.T.]

It's a good thing secular morality erodes Religious morality over time in the West because if not, we'd still be arguing slavery and the woman's place in society ~ as well as chopping hands off for stolen packs of gum, executing gays, executing those who shun Muhammad, stoning folks and even burning Witches. We'd also be subject to frivolous Laws regarding working on a Sunday and what we eat at which time of the year. It's also a good thing that even Religious folk in the West seem to be more secular than theist in behaviour.

 

[ricechickie]

I keep pondering “successful behaviors lead to successful outcomes” and are therefore “good.”

Are there not people who are seen as successful who got that way through dishonest means? Or even through honest, but let’s say, “cutthroat” means, which may be at the expense of others. Are those people “good”?

 

[ding]

I keep pondering “successful behaviors lead to successful outcomes” and are therefore “good.”

Are there not people who are seen as successful who got that way through dishonest means? Or even through honest, but let’s say, “cutthroat” means, which may be at the expense of others. Are those people “good”?

I think you are reading successful too narrowly. Especially since my reference was using peace and harmony versus disorder and chaos. It’s almost like you are going out of your way to look for reasons to not believe that there are good and bad behaviors.

 

[ricechickie]

I keep pondering “successful behaviors lead to successful outcomes” and are therefore “good.”

Are there not people who are seen as successful who got that way through dishonest means? Or even through honest, but let’s say, “cutthroat” means, which may be at the expense of others. Are those people “good”?

I think you are reading successful too narrowly. Especially since my reference was using peace and harmony versus disorder and chaos. It’s almost like you are going out of your way to look for reasons to not believe that there are good and bad behaviors.

I specifically used the phrase “people who are seen as successful “ in order to avoid defining it too narrowly.

The point is that most people define success narrowly, based on the most superficial criteria.

How do you measure success?

 

[G.T.]

I keep pondering “successful behaviors lead to successful outcomes” and are therefore “good.”

Are there not people who are seen as successful who got that way through dishonest means? Or even through honest, but let’s say, “cutthroat” means, which may be at the expense of others. Are those people “good”?

You're reading too far into it, it's actually a tautology because the outcomes are what's being used to call the behaviors "successful," via adhoc analysis.

In other words, it was a vacuous comment not even worth a second thought.......but what you seem to have responded to was more like this: ""Good" behaviors lead to successful outcomes......" - - and then your response, "yeah but so do bad ones," also renders the comment vacuous.

Doing philosophy or logic with Ding is just tedious - it's vacuous claim after tautology after piling on MORE unsupported assertions every time he attempts to support a claim....and then when he's cornered he starts memeing with slogans....it's literally like arguing with a 4yr old.

 

[ricechickie]

And my point was actually the opposite: that someone who is good could be seen as “unsuccessful” and someone who does bad could be seen as successful.

Honestly, the slogan “successful behaviors leads to successful outcomes” sounds like one of those shallow self-help guru slogans that people use. It can easily be misconstrued or misused to prove that material success makes a person “good.”

 

[G.T.]

And my point was actually the opposite: that someone who is good could be seen as “unsuccessful” and someone who does bad could be seen as successful.

Honestly, the slogan “successful behaviors leads to successful outcomes” sounds like one of those shallow self-help guru slogans that people use. It can easily be misconstrued or misused to prove that material success makes a person “good.”

Exactly!~ lol.....self-help slogans.

"bad behaviors lead to bad outcomes"


It's like a self-sooth for him

 

[ricechickie]

I keep pondering “successful behaviors lead to successful outcomes” and are therefore “good.”

Are there not people who are seen as successful who got that way through dishonest means? Or even through honest, but let’s say, “cutthroat” means, which may be at the expense of others. Are those people “good”?

You're reading too far into it, it's actually a tautology because the outcomes are what's being used to call the behaviors "successful," via adhoc analysis.

In other words, it was a vacuous comment not even worth a second thought.......but what you seem to have responded to was more like this: ""Good" behaviors lead to successful outcomes......" - - and then your response, "yeah but so do bad ones," also renders the comment vacuous.

Doing philosophy or logic with Ding is just tedious - it's vacuous claim after tautology after piling on MORE unsupported assertions every time he attempts to support a claim....and then when he's cornered he starts memeing with slogans....it's literally like arguing with a 4yr old.

Despite the fact that I had to look up two words from your first sentence alone, I tend to agree.

But perhaps things that are self-evident to you need to be worked through logically for others. Key word being “logically.”

 

[G.T.]

I keep pondering “successful behaviors lead to successful outcomes” and are therefore “good.”

Are there not people who are seen as successful who got that way through dishonest means? Or even through honest, but let’s say, “cutthroat” means, which may be at the expense of others. Are those people “good”?

You're reading too far into it, it's actually a tautology because the outcomes are what's being used to call the behaviors "successful," via adhoc analysis.

In other words, it was a vacuous comment not even worth a second thought.......but what you seem to have responded to was more like this: ""Good" behaviors lead to successful outcomes......" - - and then your response, "yeah but so do bad ones," also renders the comment vacuous.

Doing philosophy or logic with Ding is just tedious - it's vacuous claim after tautology after piling on MORE unsupported assertions every time he attempts to support a claim....and then when he's cornered he starts memeing with slogans....it's literally like arguing with a 4yr old.

Despite the fact that I had to look up two words from your first sentence alone, I tend to agree.

But perhaps things that are self-evident to you need to be worked through logically for others. Key word being “logically.”

Well, that's kind of the thing is that tautologies cannot be rendered Logically - they simply restate the Law of Identity....

"bad is bad"
"success is successful"
"red is red"
"a is a"

It's already down to its bones, and not even worth the 0.009 calories it takes to regurgitate...that's why I boycotted this child long ago from tedious convoes, it's because he is missing something in his brain like - - - - -literally. That's why he's an obsessive repeater and sounds like a self-help guru, as opposed to a systemic, rational human being. He's seeking reassurance, and I'm an asshole for teasing him.

(and so are you, Taz !! lol )

 

[ricechickie]

I keep pondering “successful behaviors lead to successful outcomes” and are therefore “good.”

Are there not people who are seen as successful who got that way through dishonest means? Or even through honest, but let’s say, “cutthroat” means, which may be at the expense of others. Are those people “good”?

You're reading too far into it, it's actually a tautology because the outcomes are what's being used to call the behaviors "successful," via adhoc analysis.

In other words, it was a vacuous comment not even worth a second thought.......but what you seem to have responded to was more like this: ""Good" behaviors lead to successful outcomes......" - - and then your response, "yeah but so do bad ones," also renders the comment vacuous.

Doing philosophy or logic with Ding is just tedious - it's vacuous claim after tautology after piling on MORE unsupported assertions every time he attempts to support a claim....and then when he's cornered he starts memeing with slogans....it's literally like arguing with a 4yr old.

Despite the fact that I had to look up two words from your first sentence alone, I tend to agree.

But perhaps things that are self-evident to you need to be worked through logically for others. Key word being “logically.”

Well, that's kind of the thing is that tautologies cannot be rendered Logically - they simply restate the Law of Identity....

"bad is bad"
"success is successful"
"red is red"
"a is a"

It's already down to its bones, and not even worth the 0.009 calories it takes to regurgitate...that's why I boycotted this child long ago from tedious convoes, it's because he is missing something in his brain like - - - - -literally. That's why he's an obsessive repeater and sounds like a self-help guru, as opposed to a systemic, rational human being. He's seeking reassurance, and I'm an asshole for teasing him.

(and so are you, Taz !! lol )

Well, yes.... you are.

What do you think about the assertion that “successful” needs to be more broadly defined? Or that maybe it’s not a tautology because we’re going from behaviors to outcomes (cause and effect)?

 

[G.T.]

I keep pondering “successful behaviors lead to successful outcomes” and are therefore “good.”

Are there not people who are seen as successful who got that way through dishonest means? Or even through honest, but let’s say, “cutthroat” means, which may be at the expense of others. Are those people “good”?

You're reading too far into it, it's actually a tautology because the outcomes are what's being used to call the behaviors "successful," via adhoc analysis.

In other words, it was a vacuous comment not even worth a second thought.......but what you seem to have responded to was more like this: ""Good" behaviors lead to successful outcomes......" - - and then your response, "yeah but so do bad ones," also renders the comment vacuous.

Doing philosophy or logic with Ding is just tedious - it's vacuous claim after tautology after piling on MORE unsupported assertions every time he attempts to support a claim....and then when he's cornered he starts memeing with slogans....it's literally like arguing with a 4yr old.

Despite the fact that I had to look up two words from your first sentence alone, I tend to agree.

But perhaps things that are self-evident to you need to be worked through logically for others. Key word being “logically.”

Well, that's kind of the thing is that tautologies cannot be rendered Logically - they simply restate the Law of Identity....

"bad is bad"
"success is successful"
"red is red"
"a is a"

It's already down to its bones, and not even worth the 0.009 calories it takes to regurgitate...that's why I boycotted this child long ago from tedious convoes, it's because he is missing something in his brain like - - - - -literally. That's why he's an obsessive repeater and sounds like a self-help guru, as opposed to a systemic, rational human being. He's seeking reassurance, and I'm an asshole for teasing him.

(and so are you, Taz !! lol )

Well, yes.... you are.

What do you think about the assertion that “successful” needs to be more broadly defined? Or that maybe it’s not a tautology because we’re going from behaviors to outcomes (cause and effect)?

I'd say that the particular sentence in question goes from effect to cause, meaning the only reason we call something "successful behavior" to begin with is BECAUSE it leads to "successful outcomes." It's like saying "cooking bacon causes cooked bacon," if that makes sense.

His sloganeering isn't always tautological, either - but it's mostly either baseless assertion, incorrect inference or illogical.

Another he seems to enjoy is "virtue is the highest organizing principle."

Obviously a subjective notion that he asserts as axiomatic - I'd (personally) probably list "survival" as the highest organizing principle and then state that virtue, itself, stems from that 1st principle.

 

[ricechickie]

I keep pondering “successful behaviors lead to successful outcomes” and are therefore “good.”

Are there not people who are seen as successful who got that way through dishonest means? Or even through honest, but let’s say, “cutthroat” means, which may be at the expense of others. Are those people “good”?

You're reading too far into it, it's actually a tautology because the outcomes are what's being used to call the behaviors "successful," via adhoc analysis.

In other words, it was a vacuous comment not even worth a second thought.......but what you seem to have responded to was more like this: ""Good" behaviors lead to successful outcomes......" - - and then your response, "yeah but so do bad ones," also renders the comment vacuous.

Doing philosophy or logic with Ding is just tedious - it's vacuous claim after tautology after piling on MORE unsupported assertions every time he attempts to support a claim....and then when he's cornered he starts memeing with slogans....it's literally like arguing with a 4yr old.

Despite the fact that I had to look up two words from your first sentence alone, I tend to agree.

But perhaps things that are self-evident to you need to be worked through logically for others. Key word being “logically.”

Well, that's kind of the thing is that tautologies cannot be rendered Logically - they simply restate the Law of Identity....

"bad is bad"
"success is successful"
"red is red"
"a is a"

It's already down to its bones, and not even worth the 0.009 calories it takes to regurgitate...that's why I boycotted this child long ago from tedious convoes, it's because he is missing something in his brain like - - - - -literally. That's why he's an obsessive repeater and sounds like a self-help guru, as opposed to a systemic, rational human being. He's seeking reassurance, and I'm an asshole for teasing him.

(and so are you, Taz !! lol )

Well, yes.... you are.

What do you think about the assertion that “successful” needs to be more broadly defined? Or that maybe it’s not a tautology because we’re going from behaviors to outcomes (cause and effect)?

I'd say that the particular sentence in question goes from effect to cause, meaning the only reason we call something "successful behavior" to begin with is BECAUSE it leads to "successful outcomes." It's like saying "cooking bacon causes cooked bacon," if that makes sense.

His sloganeering isn't always tautological, either - but it's mostly either baseless assertion, incorrect inference or illogical.

Another he seems to enjoy is "virtue is the highest organizing principle."

Obviously a subjective notion that he asserts as axiomatic - I'd (personally) probably list "survival" as the highest organizing principle and then state that virtue, itself, stems from that 1st principle.

Philosohy major?

 

[G.T.]

You're reading too far into it, it's actually a tautology because the outcomes are what's being used to call the behaviors "successful," via adhoc analysis.

In other words, it was a vacuous comment not even worth a second thought.......but what you seem to have responded to was more like this: ""Good" behaviors lead to successful outcomes......" - - and then your response, "yeah but so do bad ones," also renders the comment vacuous.

Doing philosophy or logic with Ding is just tedious - it's vacuous claim after tautology after piling on MORE unsupported assertions every time he attempts to support a claim....and then when he's cornered he starts memeing with slogans....it's literally like arguing with a 4yr old.

Despite the fact that I had to look up two words from your first sentence alone, I tend to agree.

But perhaps things that are self-evident to you need to be worked through logically for others. Key word being “logically.”

Well, that's kind of the thing is that tautologies cannot be rendered Logically - they simply restate the Law of Identity....

"bad is bad"
"success is successful"
"red is red"
"a is a"

It's already down to its bones, and not even worth the 0.009 calories it takes to regurgitate...that's why I boycotted this child long ago from tedious convoes, it's because he is missing something in his brain like - - - - -literally. That's why he's an obsessive repeater and sounds like a self-help guru, as opposed to a systemic, rational human being. He's seeking reassurance, and I'm an asshole for teasing him.

(and so are you, Taz !! lol )

Well, yes.... you are.

What do you think about the assertion that “successful” needs to be more broadly defined? Or that maybe it’s not a tautology because we’re going from behaviors to outcomes (cause and effect)?

I'd say that the particular sentence in question goes from effect to cause, meaning the only reason we call something "successful behavior" to begin with is BECAUSE it leads to "successful outcomes." It's like saying "cooking bacon causes cooked bacon," if that makes sense.

His sloganeering isn't always tautological, either - but it's mostly either baseless assertion, incorrect inference or illogical.

Another he seems to enjoy is "virtue is the highest organizing principle."

Obviously a subjective notion that he asserts as axiomatic - I'd (personally) probably list "survival" as the highest organizing principle and then state that virtue, itself, stems from that 1st principle.

Philosohy major?

I didn't major in it but I chose the electives wherever I could..... I've also followed philosophical debates ever since the internet. lol

I'm not a sophist, though........I actually think that Philosophy is sort of innate/over-rated. Rational thought is what I'd consider just a given faculty of "most people," MOST DEFINITELY NOT ALL...................but what I've learned is that most rabbit-holes of philosophy lead folks to believing things that most of us already kind of knew...

So - my last endeavor of interest in philosophy is in tackling illogical beliefs - meaning beliefs that are not supportable yet paraded as absolute truths.

Religion is a big one, then there's existence itself - - - and the what-ifs are fun (theoretical physics is intriguing)

 

[G.T.]

Despite the fact that I had to look up two words from your first sentence alone, I tend to agree.

But perhaps things that are self-evident to you need to be worked through logically for others. Key word being “logically.”

Well, that's kind of the thing is that tautologies cannot be rendered Logically - they simply restate the Law of Identity....

"bad is bad"
"success is successful"
"red is red"
"a is a"

It's already down to its bones, and not even worth the 0.009 calories it takes to regurgitate...that's why I boycotted this child long ago from tedious convoes, it's because he is missing something in his brain like - - - - -literally. That's why he's an obsessive repeater and sounds like a self-help guru, as opposed to a systemic, rational human being. He's seeking reassurance, and I'm an asshole for teasing him.

(and so are you, Taz !! lol )

Well, yes.... you are.

What do you think about the assertion that “successful” needs to be more broadly defined? Or that maybe it’s not a tautology because we’re going from behaviors to outcomes (cause and effect)?

I'd say that the particular sentence in question goes from effect to cause, meaning the only reason we call something "successful behavior" to begin with is BECAUSE it leads to "successful outcomes." It's like saying "cooking bacon causes cooked bacon," if that makes sense.

His sloganeering isn't always tautological, either - but it's mostly either baseless assertion, incorrect inference or illogical.

Another he seems to enjoy is "virtue is the highest organizing principle."

Obviously a subjective notion that he asserts as axiomatic - I'd (personally) probably list "survival" as the highest organizing principle and then state that virtue, itself, stems from that 1st principle.

Philosohy major?

I didn't major in it but I chose the electives wherever I could..... I've also followed philosophical debates ever since the internet. lol

I'm not a sophist, though........I actually think that Philosophy is sort of innate/over-rated. Rational thought is what I'd consider just a given faculty of "most people," MOST DEFINITELY NOT ALL...................but what I've learned is that most rabbit-holes of philosophy lead folks to believing things that most of us already kind of knew...

So - my last endeavor of interest in philosophy is in tackling illogical beliefs - meaning beliefs that are not supportable yet paraded as absolute truths.

Religion is a big one, then there's existence itself - - - and the what-ifs are fun (theoretical physics is intriguing)

The other day, my 6-year old Daughter was with her Uncle who had to swing by a WAKE during the day.

My wife sort of casually mentioned it, like during her listing off of what they'd planned to do for the day. Like it was no big deal, lol....."I was like whoa, wait, what??"

I like my brother in law, very much so.....but he had me in a dilemma because I'm waiting until my kids are old enough to expose them to Religious dogma......old enough to discern fact from fiction for themselves regarding the topic, and make their own rational decision............as opposed to ingraining the seemingly magical/supernatural explanation of things and having them become irrationally dogmatic about Religion like so many human beings before them....into the un-foreseeable future.

I thought that if she had asked a lot of questions, he might answer the life and death inquiry by invoking the "its okay! They're in Heaven now!" sort of thing.

So - I had to chat with him and let him know that I don't want them purposefully exposed to those sorts of Religious answers....and he was absolutely cool and gentlemanly about it. It wasn't some smarmy internet debate.....it was dude respecting dude and that's that.....so what happened was, the Funeral Parlor has a children's playroom and he didn't even tell her the nature of the visit to begin with. Turns out that I was worried for no reason.

The kiddies will surely be exposed to Religion prematurely, in some way - and I'll explain.....but the implications are too disturbed to do it purposefully because of the way that a human mind is developing that early-on.

 

[emilynghiem]

GT believes that morals are subjective. Morals are effectively standards. Standards are not subjective, people are subjective. Standards exist in and of themselves and are determined by the outcomes they produce; namely peace, harmony and success. When we normalize our deviance to these standards, predictable surprises occur. So in effect, standards exist for a reason and that reason is to prevent negative outcomes.

The same action can have a peaceful and successful outcome, and can have a bad outcome somewhere else in the world. Like for example, Russia invades and takes part of Ukraine, successful outcome. ISIS invades Iraq and gets their ass kicked, unsuccessful outcome. Please try again.

By the way, anything that Dingerred raises as a point of contention - - - anyone else worthy of respect that I'd talk to can raise same if they'd like to see how I'd address what he's had to say. Ding, though? A waste of my time.

That’s what you really wanted to tell Emily but were too much of a fake to say what you really believed. Of course we both know your beliefs are full of holes and can’t stand up to logic which is why you resort to name calling and run away.

Hi ding Hi G.T.
I don't think either one of you is a fake or waste of time.
Is it an internet thing, or a guy thing, that is making you both think of each other otherwise?
Maybe you are right, you don't need to waste each other's time arguing over who is calling names.

One thing I will say for G.T. when it came to saying EXACTLY what his opinion was
of my supporting the religious freedom of "bigots" to their beliefs against homosexuality and same sex marriage,
G.T. was so shocked and beyond appalled by what he feared was my enabling of dangerous discrimination, that was the reason he didn't want to talk to me. There were probably no words that could describe much less fix that.

But to his credit, he put all that aside to try to stick to our previous standard communication.
ding I don't think that is some small thing or bad thing to hold against someone.
I think it speaks to how big someone is, to put all that aside for the sake of trying to maintain positive relations despite very hurtful differences.

I just wish you could see this in each other,
instead of only looking at where we disagree and judging based on that.

By human nature, sure, there are so many variables, we are going to disagree on the majority of possibilities out there.
The chances of agreeing on points are going to be a tiny fraction in comparison.
Instead of freaking out and dividing over that, I value the points where we can connect, even more, for their greater reward and benefit.
The diamonds that are tiny and rare are precious and shouldn't be thrown out with all the other coal and raw materials
that are worthless garbage in which those diamonds are hidden. But rather this makes the treasures inside more valuable.

Maybe it's a guy thing, that the male mind is designed to defend turf against hostile invasion competing for dominance.
Maybe it's just natural instinct to put up barriers using "fighting words" or namecalling as a standard defense.

ding if we as Christians believe that our spiritual nature is supposed to trump our selfish interests, animal nature and flesh,
we are called to reconcile with God and take the higher ground, and not stoop to petty pecking order politics and pack mentality.
We are called to be bigger than that, not by our own ability which we have not, but by the grace of God. G.T. has shown he can put
his own personal feelings and misgivings aside, and try to focus on where he and I can still connect, despite how strong his reproach was,
where I thought he would give up on me. And am so grateful he did not.

The friendships and relationships we forge on that level, are that much more precious
the greater the sacrifices it takes to allow the good points to shine through the bad, no matter how bad.

Thank you both for being here and toughing it out.
If it were easy to forgive, and just focus on the good, we would already have world peace instead of world war.
You remind me how much work it really takes, and you inspire me not to give up.
But keep chopping away at the coal, that makes up the majority of the mine, and letting all that go.
And enjoy the journey to get to the diamonds, that make up the tiniest minority, but are the purpose for the whole process.

I appreciate the contrasting or even conflicting views that you offer,
and hope that together we can find even more precious gems in all this muck
that outweigh the suffering it takes to get there! Sorry for these troubles,
which is the nature of internet forums and the diversity that crosses paths here,
and I hope we can help each other work out the issues that bother us most.

To get to the GOOD stuff!
Yours truly, Emily

 

[G.T.]

GT believes that morals are subjective. Morals are effectively standards. Standards are not subjective, people are subjective. Standards exist in and of themselves and are determined by the outcomes they produce; namely peace, harmony and success. When we normalize our deviance to these standards, predictable surprises occur. So in effect, standards exist for a reason and that reason is to prevent negative outcomes.

The same action can have a peaceful and successful outcome, and can have a bad outcome somewhere else in the world. Like for example, Russia invades and takes part of Ukraine, successful outcome. ISIS invades Iraq and gets their ass kicked, unsuccessful outcome. Please try again.

By the way, anything that Dingerred raises as a point of contention - - - anyone else worthy of respect that I'd talk to can raise same if they'd like to see how I'd address what he's had to say. Ding, though? A waste of my time.

That’s what you really wanted to tell Emily but were too much of a fake to say what you really believed. Of course we both know your beliefs are full of holes and can’t stand up to logic which is why you resort to name calling and run away.

Hi ding Hi G.T.
I don't think either one of you is a fake or waste of time.
Is it an internet thing, or a guy thing, that is making you both think of each other otherwise?
Maybe you are right, you don't need to waste each other's time arguing over who is calling names.

One thing I will say for G.T. when it came to saying EXACTLY what his opinion was
of my supporting the religious freedom of "bigots" to their beliefs against homosexuality and same sex marriage,
G.T. was so shocked and beyond appalled by what he feared was my enabling of dangerous discrimination, that was the reason he didn't want to talk to me. There were probably no words that could describe much less fix that.

But to his credit, he put all that aside to try to stick to our previous standard communication.
ding I don't think that is some small thing or bad thing to hold against someone.
I think it speaks to how big someone is, to put all that aside for the sake of trying to maintain positive relations despite very hurtful differences.

I just wish you could see this in each other,
instead of only looking at where we disagree and judging based on that.

By human nature, sure, there are so many variables, we are going to disagree on the majority of possibilities out there.
The chances of agreeing on points are going to be a tiny fraction in comparison.
Instead of freaking out and dividing over that, I value the points where we can connect, even more, for their greater reward and benefit.
The diamonds that are tiny and rare are precious and shouldn't be thrown out with all the other coal and raw materials
that are worthless garbage in which those diamonds are hidden. But rather this makes the treasures inside more valuable.

Maybe it's a guy thing, that the male mind is designed to defend turf against hostile invasion competing for dominance.
Maybe it's just natural instinct to put up barriers using "fighting words" or namecalling as a standard defense.

ding if we as Christians believe that our spiritual nature is supposed to trump our selfish interests, animal nature and flesh,
we are called to reconcile with God and take the higher ground, and not stoop to petty pecking order politics and pack mentality.
We are called to be bigger than that, not by our own ability which we have not, but by the grace of God. G.T. has shown he can put
his own personal feelings and misgivings aside, and try to focus on where he and I can still connect, despite how strong his reproach was,
where I thought he would give up on me. And am so grateful he did not.

The friendships and relationships we forge on that level, are that much more precious
the greater the sacrifices it takes to allow the good points to shine through the bad, no matter how bad.

Thank you both for being here and toughing it out.
If it were easy to forgive, and just focus on the good, we would already have world peace instead of world war.
You remind me how much work it really takes, and you inspire me not to give up.
But keep chopping away at the coal, that makes up the majority of the mine, and letting all that go.
And enjoy the journey to get to the diamonds, that make up the tiniest minority, but are the purpose for the whole process.

That's cuz I keep it ten toes down, girl

 

[MarathonMike]

There are some Biblical sayings that ring true. In this context "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" comes to mind.

how would you define spirit? would it require a mind? have you verified it exists? what method(s) did you use, if so?

It's a famous Biblical quote, interpret it as you may. To me, it means that people are well meaning, but often fall short when it comes to action.

 

[ding]

I keep pondering “successful behaviors lead to successful outcomes” and are therefore “good.”

Are there not people who are seen as successful who got that way through dishonest means? Or even through honest, but let’s say, “cutthroat” means, which may be at the expense of others. Are those people “good”?

I think you are reading successful too narrowly. Especially since my reference was using peace and harmony versus disorder and chaos. It’s almost like you are going out of your way to look for reasons to not believe that there are good and bad behaviors.

I specifically used the phrase “people who are seen as successful “ in order to avoid defining it too narrowly.

The point is that most people define success narrowly, based on the most superficial criteria.

How do you measure success?

Think of it this way, two people who are caring, thankful and humble will always have a more successful relationship than two people who are cruel, thankless and selfish.

Success is a broad measure but we all know what it looks like in reference to failure. It can be measured many ways, but the contrast to its antithesis is always stark.